> pitz wrote:
> > I'm sold at using a CF card as my primary "hard disk".  No moving
> > parts, and some (though certainly not all) CF cards have almost the
> > same MTBF rating as hard disks.  I'm currently using a CFFA setup for
> > my IIgs.

> I've been using the same CF card for a few years, and have never
> had any problem.  The same is not true for three different hard
> drives.

> Of course, the hard drives are now all "old" drives, and deserve
> to be able to fail in peace, but I have no reason to worry about
> the reliability of CF card(s) (which are wear-leveled) and trivially
> backed-up and restored to new cards, if necessary.

> > What I want to find is how it compares, in terms of performance, with
> > other CF-based setups, assuming that the CF interface is not the
> > bottleneck (i.e., using a very fast CF).

> On an 8MHz accelerated //e, the speed of the CFFA never seems to
> be a bottleneck at all.

> I would also be interested in speed comparisons for typical file
> operations, but, subjectively, it's plenty fast enough not to be
> an issue.

> > I'm curious if using a Focus controller and an IDE-CF adapter is
> > better than a CFFA or MicroDrive setup.  Or even a complex setup such
> > as a RAMFAST (or HS-SCSI) + SCSI-IDE adapter + IDE-CF adapter.  There
> > are some SCSI-CF adapters out there, but not very common.

> > Can anyone who has more than one of the above setups provide some
> > performance characteristics of each?

> -michael

> AppleCrate: An Apple II "blade server"!
> Home page:  http://members.aol.com/MJMahon/

> "The wastebasket is our most important design
> tool--and it's seriously underused."